Talk:Bryan Fuller
If I look at his list of episodes, my very first impression is dark, somber and Gothic, mainly Gothic, with a particular fondness for starships. -- Redge | ''Talk'' 13:40, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST) :Yes, and an affinity for death and the afterlife. Look at Dead Like Me and Pushing Daisies and his two Voyager episodes, and the one where Seven revives Neelix after dying, can't remember the name. Vegfarandi 18:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ::It was called . --From Andoria with Love 20:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC) New series Well I am really sorry I am writing this here, but I really love what was done with Star Trek after the original series with nearly all the shows that followed and the idea of Fuller coming in and turning this into a space version of Sex and the effing City and Beverly Hills 90210 with probably a soap-opera star cast just sounds like a really bad idea. I hope that if what he plans on doing is really true he wont get this produced. – Distantlycharmed 02:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC) :Not that this belongs here, but what the heck, I'll reply anyway. Where are you getting the assumption that the show will be "Sex and the City/''Beverly Hills, 90210'' in Space"? The only thing that has been said about Fuller's idea is that he hopes to return to the spirit of the original series. Nothing was mentioned of having oversexed teenagers or sex-hungry middle-aged women trying to work out relationships while working aboard a starship. In other words, we have no clue what Fuller is planning so I'm not sure how you can call an idea bad when you don't no what the idea is. I just find that curious. ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I guess I was generally referring to the fact that most TV shows and the lame actors they employ these days are just bad on many levels (a discussion which is beyond the scope of this forum); and with the way TV shows are turning out these days, I was afraid a Star Trek remake would be yet another victim. Don't get me wrong, I like SATC actually a lot, but not in Star Trek :) The way I read it from that article it seemed like he wanted to return to some bubbly kind of show by going back to the "colors and attitude" and "fun" (I suddenly had this image of flashy outfits on models slash actors), and insisting that all the new shows lost a lot of the spirit of the 60s. He was also dumping on ENT calling it "sterile" (are you kidding me?) because it wasn't "fun" enough (or fun at all). And, he was dumping on all the other Star Trek shows with the exception of some TNG and "an occasional episode of DS9"", criticizing the entire premise and thus paradigm most shows after TOS were based on. Ironically, as he complains about most of Star Trek story and plot lines having become "too familiar", all the stuff he writes about is the same over and over again (see above discussion). He seemed to want to change Star Trek around a lot, by making yet another prequel moving away from most of what Star Trek is built upon. True, we don't know concretely what he is planning, but from what I read, it sounds bad enough. He shouldn't be let to mess around with Star Trek like that. – Distantlycharmed 04:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC) ::As Shran said, this isn't the place for this discussion. As you've been told before, Distantlycharmed, talk pages are for discussing changes to articles and maintenances of them, they are not general forums about personal likes or dislikes of their subject. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Relax. I was just responding to him cause he asked. – Distantlycharmed 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC) ::No, you created this section, you started this conversation. Stop starting conversations you know full well do not belong here. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Why dont you go tell Shran. He responded too and he is admin. – Distantlycharmed 06:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC) ::He responded by first telling you that "this doesn't belong here," which you chose to ignore. Just like you chose to ignore previous times you've been told not to do this by starting this very conversation. Now stop making these. They don't belong here, they aren't what talk pages are for. This isn't a general forum. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC) :Cobra, please don't put the blame this solely on Distantlycharmed. Both of us (Distantlycharmed and I) are in the wrong here, Distantly for starting the conversation and myself for continuing it. I should have just said this doesn't belong here and left it at that. My apologies to everyone, especially to you, Distantlycharmed, for prompting you to continue the discussion. Oh, and for getting you yelled at by the ever-fearful Cobra. :) --From Andoria with Love 11:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Removed I removed the following: :Fuller hopes that if there is a second season, he can return to co-write it. http://europe.newsweek.com/exclusive-bryan-fuller-bittersweet-departure-star-trek-527540?rm=eu It was outdated, and the sentence didn’t even reflect what Fuller said in the cited article accurately. In reference to a second season, he said, "They have my number and if they need me I will absolutely be there for them." That’s not really the same as hoping to co-write; it's just an expression that the door is not closed on his part. I was going to attempt to rephrase the sentence to reflect what Fuller said more accurately, but decided that since Discovery is now filming its third season and Fuller is clearly not coming back, it really didn’t add anything to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 02:20, September 11, 2019 (UTC)